In a message dated 8/22/2005 11:59:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> However, the issue I have with your contentions (to the extent they > refer to me) is that you seem to be suggesting I have insensitivity to > subtle bigotries as suffered by a particular group, which (to me) > translates to a suggestion that I'm insensitive to bigotry and > oppression in general. I don't believe that's the case. I'd have to be > a member of an unoppressed majority for that to be a feasible charge, > at least to my mind, and as I've stated, I am not such a fortunate > person. I am not suggesting generral insensitivity since I do not know your opinon on other issues but only to anti-semitic remarks. By the way being oppressed does not immunize one against prejudice. You would think that Jews and blacks would understand each other and be tolerant of each other but while this may be true in general there are of course many racists jews and anti-semitic blacks. > > And in this instance, again what we're talking about is a judgment > call. I can be so sure of that because there is simply no objective > evidence to support *anyone's* claims here. That strongly suggests > we're dealing in the realm of opinion alone. I have tried to point out that there is in fact a structure to certain anti-semitic remarks that are historically verifiable. I don't believe it requires judgement to say some remarks are anti-semitic. This does not mean that the person making the remarks is explcitly anti-semitic and if pointing out the nature of a statement is anti-semitic makes a person reconsider it then there would be good evidence that the person did not understand the implications of their remarks. > > If there were objective reality to the claim that the "neo-con" > movement was originally comprised largely or exclusively of Jewish > people, then a case *could be* made that the label, used in certain > situations, would be evidence of an ism. But there'd have to be a few > things in place for this to be a valid charge, in my estimation: > > 1. Neo-cons would have to be indisputably Jewish, either initially or > now; > 2. The label would have to be applied in a way that hinted at a broader > Jewish conspiracy; > 3. The label would have to be applied by someone who might reasonably > be charged with an ism. > > Problem is that point (1) seems to be in dispute. Point (2) is not > verifiably attached to Sheehan. And point (3) requires a knowledge of a > person's motivations that can only come with rigorous checking of > background, declarations of position made historically, and so on. The point is not whether neo-cons are all jewish it is that anti-semites identify them as jews and use the term neocon as a suragate for "jew". 2) Such hints are out there. 3) Pat Bucchanan comes to mind. > > Were the source of the allegations someone like Pat Robertson -- who's > absolutely a bigot -- then I would have little doubt that the intent > was to do harm to Jewish people. But Sheehan doesn't have a public > record of making bigoted statements, so it's harder to convince me that > she had harmful intentions in the things she might or might not have > said. Whether she has harmful intentions or not the issue is whether her remarks however naive or uninformed are anti-semitic; I (and others on the list) contend they are and have pointed out the specific ways in which they are anti-semitic. > > So would you concede that it's your background in Judaic culture which > helps you be more sensitive to oppression in other groups? And would > you further concede the *possibility* that someone in a different > oppressed group might be just as sensitive to Jewish plight? Finally, > would you consider it plausible that what we're actually having here is > a difference of *judgment* in an issue which, like a "strike zone", is > vaguely defined at the edges, and which therefore disallows the > probability of an objective decision being made? I would of course concede that Cindy insensitive to the plight of jews. That is the crux of the issue. Her insenstivity to issues of antisemitism becomes antisemitism when she makes remarks that are anti-semitic. There is no judgement about whether the remarks are anti-semitic in my opinion. Nick says she is not explicitly anti-semitic and I accept that but she clearly blames what neocons for our tilt (in her opinion) towards Israel and once again I cannot stress enough that this line of reasoning is used by explicit anti-semites > > > -- > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
